Breaking: Supreme Court to hear challenges to Proposition 8, DOMA

posted at 4:29 pm on December 7, 2012 by Allahpundit

I’m surprised. I said a few weeks ago that I thought neither wing of the Court had an incentive to grant cert on gay-marriage cases right now. The conservative wing should be worried that Kennedy, who’s written two landmark opinions supporting gay rights, will vote with the liberals. The liberal wing should be worried that a Court ruling imposing gay marriage nationwide will generate a ferocious backlash just at the moment that SSM supporters are starting to win state referendums.

It only takes four votes to grant cert. Which side decided to roll the dice?

The new California [Proposition 8] case, Hollingsworth v. Perry, No. 12-144, was filed in 2009 by Theodore B. Olson and David Boies, two lawyers who were on opposite sides in the Supreme Court’s decision in Bush v. Gore, which settled the 2000 presidential election. The suit argued that California’s voters had violated the federal Constitution the previous year when they overrode a decision of the state’s Supreme Court allowing same-sex marriages…

Judge Stephen R. Reinhardt, writing for the [Ninth Circuit] majority [that struck down Proposition 8], relied heavily on a 1996 majority opinion from Justice Kennedy in Romer v. Evans, which struck down a Colorado constitutional amendment that had banned the passage of laws protecting gay men and lesbians. The voter initiative in California, known as Proposition 8, had done something similar, Judge Reinhardt wrote…

“For now,” he said, “it suffices to conclude that the people of California may not, consistent with the federal Constitution, add to their state Constitution a provision that has no more practical effect than to strip gays and lesbians of their right to use the official designation that the state and society give to committed relationships, thereby adversely affecting the status and dignity of the members of a disfavored class.”

The Supreme Court has several options in reviewing the decision. It could reverse it, leaving California’s ban on same-sex marriage in place unless voters there choose to revisit the question. It could affirm on the narrower theory, which would allow same-sex marriage in California but not require it elsewhere. Or it could address the broader question of whether the Constitution requires states to allow such marriages.

My hunch is that it was the conservatives who voted to take both cases, not the liberals. The liberals have no real incentive to touch this right now. They were just granted four more years to hope for a conservative vacancy on the Court, at which point gay marriage by judicial fiat will be a fait accompli. The more states enact gay marriage in the meantime, the stronger their political position will be when that moment finally arrives. And Kennedy, while likely to vote with them, is always a wild card. Why take a chance on him now and risk an unfavorable precedent when they can simply punt? They’ve got time; they can wait. For the conservatives, the logic runs the opposite way. As skittish as they are about Kennedy, they’re better off forcing this issue and gambling on him than waiting for a fifth liberal justice to be appointed by Obama. Ruling against gay marriage now won’t stop a liberal Court from overruling the decision later, but it will help delegitimize the future ruling by underscoring how nakedly ideological the Court’s changing thinking is. The conservatives may also figure that accepting this now along with DOMA may incline Kennedy to issue a split decision. Striking down either DOMA or Prop 8 would be huge, but striking down both on the same day would be epochal, maybe too much so to make a moderate like him comfortable. It could box him in on federalism too. If he’s inclined to strike down DOMA in the name of letting states set the rules on family law, then why can’t Californians set their own rules with Prop 8?

The only reason I can think of why the liberals might want to hear this case is because they think it’s important to have justices from both wings of the Court in the majority for a ruling as controversial as finding an equal protection right to gay marriage. But like I say, even with Kennedy’s record on gay rights, that’s a serious gamble. And how would having a bipartisan Court majority help sell this decision to the public if the only bipartisan element is Kennedy? A majority with Scalia, Alito, or Thomas in it would be dramatic. A majority with four liberals plus the guy who’s voted with liberals repeatedly on gay rights would be meh.

Court watchers I’ve corresponded with believe that the likeliest outcome, given the justices’ individual histories on similar questions, would be a decision that strikes down the federal recognition prong of DOMA while also ruling there is no constitutional right to get married. This result would mean that married gay couples would be eligible for federal benefits but that gays could only get married in states where such unions were legal.

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Aside from the legalities, which no one thinks are important … It’s all about the vote of the 9 Supremes. Which is becoming more and more to be less and less about anything at all but their biases. Why else would Presidents nominate those who are such reliable votes for their side?

To me, a strike down of DOMA will mean a requirement to teach kids in elementary school there’s no difference between str8 and gay marriage, it means teaching or telling children that str8 marriage is better than gay marriage will be illegal, it means kids will be confused, it means when you’re introduced to someone who says they’re married, you won’t know if they’re married to a man or a woman. This is where we’re going. I still don’t understand how one man can be sexually attracted to another man. But it will all be explained to me soon enough. Not looking forward to that.

ZachV, you misunderstood question #1. The key element being separated from one another.

You insulted women with your answer to question #2. Apparently, women are de facto damsels in distress that require being rescued. You know, as a “generalization.” That whole “my body, my choice” thing? It’s only applicable when progs say it’s applicable, apparently.

You, frankly, never answered question #3. Are we or are we not “animals”?

Ruling against gay marriage now won’t stop a liberal Court from overruling the decision later, but it will help delegitimize the future ruling by underscoring how nakedly ideological the Court’s changing thinking is.

good point…the libs cry outrage that a future gop court will overturn roe v wade even though that hasn’t happened…and yet with this lsm, the low info voter won’t notice it….
*sigh*

My understanding of marriage must be flawed, hence my misunderstanding of the issue. I have always thought marriage was created to protect the offspring of a Man and a Woman having sexual intercourse which led to the Woman becoming pregnant and giving birth to offspring. It was a protection of the children, not the parents. Since a Gay couple by their very nature cannot produce offspring, wouldn’t this disqualify them from Marriage? The nature of heterosexuals and homosexuals is indeed the difference. One state producing offspring which need protection, one state not capable of offspring, therefore no protection of offspring is required. I will have to think this through yet again and remember to include emotion and strip away logic.

1. The court will rule Prop 8 constitutional by a 5-4 vote with the usual suspects on either side. Majority opinion written by Kennedy will extol federalism. Concurring opinion written by Scalia, joined by Thomas, will denounce homosexuality. Minority opinion will talk about Romer precedent, suggesting Prop 8 takes rights away from a suspect class.

2. The court will rule the portion of DOMA that denies federal recognition to same-sex couples married under state law unconstitutional, probably along a 6-3 vote, with Kennedy and Roberts joining the liberals, with the opinion extolling federalism. Concurring opinion written by one of the four liberals will argue a fundamental right to marriage for same-sex couples. Minority opinion written by Scalia will do the usual denouncements. The section of DOMA forcing other states to not recognize same-sex marriages obtained legally in other states will NOT be ruled upon.

3. In both cases, the justices will agree that the defendants (the Prop 8 supporters in one case, the Republican House in the other) do indeed have standing. This will likely be by 9-0 decision.

Will they also explain how such a marriage is consummated? It’s major grounds for annulment if a marriage isn’t consummated, and affects distribution of marital assets. DarthBrooks on December 7, 2012 at 7:33 PM

“Once a pen!s or penile facsimile is inserted by one partner into any orifice of the other partner, including, but not limited to, a finger, thumb, or tongue, the marriage is thereby declared consummated, and western civilization is none the worse for wear and tear, unless the partners are of opposite sex, then it’s only Saturday night.” -SCOTUS

“I truly believe that the day I’m inaugurated, not only the country looks at itself differently, but the world looks at America differently…If I’m reaching out to the Muslim world they understand that I’ve lived in a Muslim country and I may be a Christian, but I also understand their point of view…My sister is half-Indonesian. I traveled there all the way through my college years. And so I’m intimately concerned with what happens in these countries and the cultures and perspective these folks have. And those are powerful tools for us to be able to reach out to the world…then I think the world will have confidence that I am listening to them and that our future and our security is tied up with our ability to work with other countries in the world that will ultimately makes us safer…”

I thought the original ruling was “Vain California Judge vs. Voters of California” citing “screw the peons and their election…I’m a judge… now don’t make me hold you lowly serfs in contempt” as precedent.

I thought the original ruling was “Vain California Judge vs. Voters of California” citing “screw the peons and their election…I’m a judge… now don’t make me hold you lowly serfs in contempt” as precedent.

viking01 on December 7, 2012 at 8:18 PM

Don’t forget “screw the morals you hold dear that are vital to civilized society, I’m going to rule in favor of a handful of drooling perverts who think they have an equal case with mixed-race couples.”

I have no idea what this guy is capable of anymore, but how he rules in this case really will decide which way this court will lean for years to come.

If he goes full-on activist, then it’s going to be part of the same “get the issue off the table” logic we’ve been encountered for the past month.

If he reverses course and says this is all state’s rights issues and Prop 8 is illegal because it overturned the will of the people…

…then it’s because Roberts believe the black/latino communities have been shamed enough by Obama and the media that, when a second ballot attempt in Cali is attempted, it will now pass.

My gut says the latter because it allows him to play shadow President, which is what I believe he’s instinctively inclined towards.

Also, if he tosses 8, then he gets Ginsburg on board with him because she’s signaled a few times that the state have to make the call and not the courts, or it will never be accepted.

The only other logic is they’re taking it on now since it passed and public opinion has become unclear. That’s the heavy activisim road, which Roberts is sure as hell capable of.

Forget Kennedy. I don’t think he has a problem tossing Prop 8 out. For him to accept it, means he believes ghey mirage is more important that the tenth amendment, or he’s going to have split the baby in some fashion like DaveO has implied.

$5 says both are struck down and Roberts is the 5th vote, not Kennedy.

Kataklysmic on December 7, 2012 at 4:48 PM

And you will probably win that bet. Roberts has a little known history of supporting gay rights.

Not only did Roberts give significant pro bono help to the lawyers representing the homosexual rights activists in Romer v. Evans, and not only was his advice substantive (relating to 14th Amendment equal-protection arguments) as well as technical, and not only did the chief lawyer for the homosexual activists describe Roberts’s assistance as “absolutely crucial” in the case, and not only has another gay rights activists called the decision the “single most important positive ruling in the history of the gay rights movement,” but, in addition to all these things, Roberts failed to include his role in Romer v. Evans in a 67-page list of his legal activities requested by the Senate Judiciary Committee, a list that included detailed accounts of his other pro bono work.

Is that really why you got married? For the sole purpose of children? I mean, unless it was a situation where you got married BECAUSE you ended up pregnant.

My money’s on your answer being no, otherwise. If you did it in the way you hoped to, it’s pretty safe odds you married someone because you loved them, found them a good partner in the realities of life, and wanted to remain with them and go through life together.

Sure, most times a family is formed from that and yes a stable marriage and household is the ideal scenario for child raising.

But sterile people aren’t denied marriage. People who don’t want kids aren’t denied marriage. And stable single people can’t be denied children either.

So… To try to turn marriage into a black and white ordeal that is solely about the responsibility of raising a child sounds more like trying to alter our concept of marriage as well.

People marry for love, to share their lives with the people they love, and become a true family in the eyes of the law, society, and themselves. Not just for child bearing.

If its only for child bearing, then there are an awful lot more people than just gays you need to be limiting the “privilege” to. And if it’s not just about child bearing, which it’s not, then some logical credence has to be given to gay marriage proponents, even if your religious feelings disagree with it.

Watch CJ Roberts find a hidden tax in the DOMA stating that all single people have to pay a tax for not being married.

CurtZHP on December 7, 2012 at 4:34 PM

The crux of the matter

There are different tax codes for married and single. In general, singles are screwed if they are not also a “head of household”. The married have more options.

In some cases antiquated aspects of an overall antiquated tax code penalize some marrieds for not being single, but in general overall the tax code screws singles (no dependents, not head of household).

Which makes so-called “libertarian” support for SSM a joke. “Libertarians” who claim to support SSM on libertarian grounds are not taking a libertarian position. They are taking a social liberal position. The consistent libertarian position is to either A) do away with discriminatory taxes and laws based on two-party marital status or B) extend the tax and legal benefits to any multi-adult arrangement.

But sterile people aren’t denied marriage. People who don’t want kids aren’t denied marriage. And stable single people can’t be denied children either.

Sterility is a genetic abnormality. Your comparison is an admission that homosexuality is genetically “abnormal”.

People marry for love, to share their lives with the people they love, and become a true family in the eyes of the law, society, and themselves. Not just for child bearing.

If its only for child bearing, then there are an awful lot more people than just gays you need to be limiting the “privilege” to. And if it’s not just about child bearing, which it’s not, then some logical credence has to be given to gay marriage proponents, even if your religious feelings disagree with it.

Welcome to America.

Genuine on December 7, 2012 at 9:33 PM

Pure emo sophistry.

You’re implying the only way a couple’s love can be vindicated is through governmental recognition.

Yet, the entire argument legal argument over Prop 8 was due to a handful of civil union couples who sued because the “civil union” monicker made them feel like second-class citizens. It had nothing to do with defining marital love.

Those legal grievances could have been addressed without making a literal federal case over it.

The legals aren’t about defining “love” or child bearing. It’s about recognition of a citizen’s rights.

But that’s never the case made by ghey mirage supporters. It’s always dressed in a veil of oppression.

Gay couples deserve all the same legal rights as hetero couples, but once you empower the state to define marriage, you’re bestowing a religious sacrament onto the state.

If Liberty or some other institution wanted to make that case before the Supremes, then all couples, gay or straight, would no longer be able to obtain a marriage “license” from the state.

It would be civil unions for all, which is how it should be.

But that’s not the intent of ghey mirage propoenents. The goal is to weaken the church within the community.

My money’s on your answer being no, otherwise. If you did it in the way you hoped to, it’s pretty safe odds you married someone because you loved them, found them a good partner in the realities of life, and wanted to remain with them and go through life together.

Sure, most times a family is formed from that and yes a stable marriage and household is the ideal scenario for child raising.

But sterile people aren’t denied marriage. People who don’t want kids aren’t denied marriage. And stable single people can’t be denied children either.

So… To try to turn marriage into a black and white ordeal that is solely about the responsibility of raising a child sounds more like trying to alter our concept of marriage as well.

People marry for love, to share their lives with the people they love, and become a true family in the eyes of the law, society, and themselves. Not just for child bearing.

If its only for child bearing, then there are an awful lot more people than just gays you need to be limiting the “privilege” to. And if it’s not just about child bearing, which it’s not, then some logical credence has to be given to gay marriage proponents, even if your religious feelings disagree with it.

Welcome to America.

Genuine on December 7, 2012 at 9:33 PM

I told my future husband after about a month of dating that if he wasn’t open to having children, he needed to tell me so I could decide if I wanted to stay with him.

I also told him I may have a condition that would make conceiving difficult, in case he had any reservations about that.

In our pre-Cana classes, the Priest had each of us go into separate rooms and interviewed each of us individually, and one of the questions was if we were open to children, and another was if we knew about any reasons we might have trouble having children.

Genuine on December 7, 2012 at 9:33 PM
Would you settle for Civil Unions that provided the same benefits as marriage does? If not, why not?
Mimzey on December 7, 2012 at 9:58 PM

I would settle for Civil Unions that provided the exact same benefits of marriage and support the idea. But I also support the idea that while your church shouldn’t be forced to marry people they don’t want to or don’t agree with, that you also have no right to tell the church down the street that they can’t marry whomever they ARE comfortable with marrying.

In many cases, in the eyes of the law, civil unions are at least mostly equivalent in a legal sense. And I’D be ok with that for the reason stated above that unless it’s made a legal right that no church should be forced to participate.

But would you settle for that? That your church can’t be told by the government to marry anyone or recognize the marriages legitimacy, but that you can’t decide for the church down the street if THEY can marry whom they choose or not?

Will they also explain how such a marriage is consummated? It’s major grounds for annulment if a marriage isn’t consummated, and affects distribution of marital assets.

DarthBrooks on December 7, 2012 at 7:33 PM

Interesting. Never thought of this. Searching the intertubes yields this:

In 1987, in Ford v Ford, a couple married while the husband was in prison. He refused to consummate the marriage, either while in prison or later. The petition for annulment was granted.

Many states explicitly require by law consummation of marriage for the vows to be considered valid. They include Alaska, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Idaho, Illinois, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, Ohio, South Carolina, Vermont and Wisconsin.

But would you settle for that? That your church can’t be told by the government to marry anyone or recognize the marriages legitimacy, but that you can’t decide for the church down the street if THEY can marry whom they choose or not?

Gay couples deserve all the same legal rights as hetero couples, but once you empower the state to define marriage, you’re bestowing a religious sacrament onto the state.

But isn’t that exactly what gay marriage opponents have been attempting to do for a decade? Use the government to “define marriage” as only being a certain unit, a man, woman, and child? So isn’t that the same thing that you are accusing the other side of doing with your disapproval?

My opinion, as stated in another response, is that no church should be able to be forced to marry homosexuals if they don’t want to and it hasn’t been determined as a “right”. But that you can’t tell the church down the street who THEY can and can not marry either.

Furthermore, I never said homosexuality was a genetic “defect” at all, and wouldn’t call it a defect, you did. I used the example of sterile couples because there is no hullabaloo against them marrying even though marriage is apparently ONLY about child rearing when it comes to homosexuals.

But you might be careful that it’s YOU digging the rhetorical hole, not me. Because if homosexuality is a genetic deal, “defect” or not, then it’s not a “choice” as so many opponents tend to believe either. So you might threat that needle a little closer next time to keep all the proper arguments intact.

It doesn’t matter who’s making the pro-SSM argument, it’s a bullshite case.

Pure emotion dressed as reason.

I know why every other minority group is recognized as a minority. I can point to something biologically, or defining cultural traits such as their own language, food, or customs.

Gay people do not posses these identifiers. And they have no interest in going down the road of “determinist” factors, because it will lead to a re-classification and subdivision of what qualifies as gay they do not want to deal with.

I’m not stating this to be an A-Hole, but because we have got to have this debate based in reality and not emotions versus the bible.

The sad thing is even if SCOTUS goes full-advocacy, it’s not going to last. You cannot have a co-opting of religious authority on this scale and expect it to stand.

It’s not hard to see the path from Augusta and the Boy Scouts to religious orgs.

And the one thing you can count on for progs, is they always over reach. They’ll sue churches over defamation, hate speech and discrimination.

…and this will go to back to SCOTUS and they’ll be forced to rename public licensed marriages.

My hope has been to avoid this road, but as Barry shows, the progs want cultural warfare first and foremost.

But I also support the idea that while your church shouldn’t be forced to marry people they don’t want to or don’t agree with, that you also have no right to tell the church down the street that they can’t marry whomever they ARE comfortable with marrying.

In many cases, in the eyes of the law, civil unions are at least mostly equivalent in a legal sense. And I’D be ok with that for the reason stated above that unless it’s made a legal right that no church should be forced to participate.

But would you settle for that? That your church can’t be told by the government to marry anyone or recognize the marriages legitimacy, but that you can’t decide for the church down the street if THEY can marry whom they choose or not?

Genuine on December 7, 2012 at 10:10 PM

Umm..I think you conflated what your position was.
You agreed to having gays be exclusively connected via civil unions..but then asked if it would be o.k. to call it “marriage”.
One or the other.
A person or a couple can call themselves whatever they want and could get “married” by a Wiccan Wizard Giant, or whatever. If a church down the road wanted to carry out a faux “marriage” ceremony, I have no problem with that as long as the only legally recognized definition of marriage was that between a man and a woman.
Would you settle for that?

But isn’t that exactly what gay marriage opponents have been attempting to do for a decade? Use the government to “define marriage” as only being a certain unit, a man, woman, and child? So isn’t that the same thing that you are accusing the other side of doing with your disapproval?

No.
Marriage has been defined for ages.
Its the gay marriage proponents who want the government involved….but only involved if that government supports them.

Seems pretty comprehendable to me. Even though it was questioned of another poster.

Would you accept a situation where your church doesn’t have to marry gay people, even though the church down the street can if they choose to? Or is allowing other people to believe differently, act differently, see things differently, or approach situations from a different perspective than you on this issue unacceptable? Will it only be acceptable if no church is allowed to marry them if they see fit to you?

Not sure of the exact purpose of your response, but given your history, I imagine I should be expected to be called a reprobate at any moment for disagreeing with you, so I’ll be prepared either way. ;)

Or is allowing other people to believe differently, act differently, see things differently, or approach situations from a different perspective than you on this issue unacceptable? Will it only be acceptable if no church is allowed to marry them if they see fit to you?

Not sure of the exact purpose of your response, but given your history, I imagine I should be expected to be called a reprobate at any moment for disagreeing with you, so I’ll be prepared either way. ;)

Genuine on December 7, 2012 at 10:29 PM

That makes no sense.
You’re implying that non gay marriage supporters try to prevent people from believing, acting, thinking differently, or perceive things differently?
I’m not getting what you’re basing that on.

Umm..I think you conflated what your position was.
You agreed to having gays be exclusively connected via civil unions..but then asked if it would be o.k. to call it “marriage”.
One or the other.
A person or a couple can call themselves whatever they want and could get “married” by a Wiccan Wizard Giant, or whatever. If a church down the road wanted to carry out a faux “marriage” ceremony, I have no problem with that as long as the only legally recognized definition of marriage was that between a man and a woman.
Would you settle for that?
Mimzey on December 7, 2012 at 10:24 PM

Nope. If a church finds gay marriage ok, and civil unions are ok, then I would not settle for the actual legal definition of marriage only being allowed to be applied to heterosexuals. If the relationships are equal in the eyes of the law, as they should be and civil unions allow for in some circumstances, then there is no logical reason to deny them a legally valid marriage if there is a established church that accepts the practice. Just like everyone else is able to, whether they plan on making a family or not.

I see no reason to force your church to marry homosexual’s. But I also see no right for your religious convictions to trump those of others either. If a church wants to marry homosexuals and finds it ok, sorry, that’s a marriage.

You may disagree and that’s your right, but that is the honest answer to your question. I would not accept that. I accept any individual churches right to not perform them, but I do not support the idea that those churches and their adherents have any right to tell the church down the street what they are allowed to do, must conform to, or what they can and can not perform just because your congregation disagrees.

I think that its about 2-3%.
Total. Of that 2-3% how many actually want to get married? There are probably some stats that could be based on the number of gays in states that have gay marriage, and how many followed thru with getting married.
That said, it seems to make little sense to change established definitions and practices for marriage for a couple of percent of 2-3% of the population.

I’ve read that it’s about 3% which means the other 97% have to kowtow to their agenda. Which is basically how this new Amerika 2.0 works. Sacrifice the will of the majority so we won’t “offend” anyone.

But isn’t that exactly what gay marriage opponents have been attempting to do for a decade? Use the government to “define marriage” as only being a certain unit, a man, woman, and child? So isn’t that the same thing that you are accusing the other side of doing with your disapproval?

I don’t agree with DOMA. I do not agree with the biblical argument being made as the legal case. I understand if a person starts from that belief, but to make it as “the reason” is also pure emotion.

My opinion, as stated in another response, is that no church should be able to be forced to marry homosexuals if they don’t want to and it hasn’t been determined as a “right”. But that you can’t tell the church down the street who THEY can and can not marry either.

I agree. I’m totally fine with Unitarians or whoever recognizing SSM.

But the problem is no one on who’s for SSM is going to stand up and defend the church who is sued for hate speech/discrimination for not performing SSM.

We see it now, when businesses are sued for not wanting to perform serivces for SSM couples. Hell, Dems in one New England state tried to pass a law saying if a church didn’t perform SSM, they would lose tax-exempt status.

Furthermore, I never said homosexuality was a genetic “defect” at all, and wouldn’t call it a defect, you did. I used the example of sterile couples because there is no hullabaloo against them marrying even though marriage is apparently ONLY about child rearing when it comes to homosexuals.

But they’re not the same. I know why a couple with infertility issues cannot have kids; it’s a genetic defect. No one knows why gay people are gay. So to compare the two is disingenuous, just as it is to compare any other minority.

But you might be careful that it’s YOU digging the rhetorical hole, not me. Because if homosexuality is a genetic deal, “defect” or not, then it’s not a “choice” as so many opponents tend to believe either. So you might threat that needle a little closer next time to keep all the proper arguments intact.

Not at all. Simple truth, give me the opportunity to argue this issue with Ted Olsen, I’d kick his old flabby arse.

Gay advocates do not want to know the reason, that’s why they put no money towards scientific studies. They know what’s going to happen when the answer is found; a reclassification.

If it’s genetic, in what way? Is it a defect like Tay-Sachs? How can it be like a black person’s pigment, when I can point to geographic locations where black people ancestrally derive from?

Is it biochemical? bi-polar is biochemical, and that’s labeled a disability. I can point to the synaptic discharge in an MRI that shows the misfiring for a bi-polar person.

But you might be careful that it’s YOU digging the rhetorical hole, not me. Because if homosexuality is a genetic deal, “defect” or not, then it’s not a “choice” as so many opponents tend to believe either. So you might threat that needle a little closer next time to keep all the proper arguments intact.

Thats a completely different discussion and has nothing to do with marriage.

Would you accept a situation where your church doesn’t have to marry gay people, even though the church down the street can if they choose to? Or is allowing other people to believe differently, act differently, see things differently, or approach situations from a different perspective than you on this issue unacceptable? Will it only be acceptable if no church is allowed to marry them if they see fit to you?

Genuine on December 7, 2012 at 10:29 PM

The hilarity is that the church down the street can already do so if they choose to, just as the FLDS can do polygamous marriages.

So the question has already been answered. Gay and lesbian bigots fully intend to use the power of the state to punish people for their religious beliefs, destroy their businesses and livelihoods, and harass and attack their churches.

That is what gay-sex marriage represents. It is nothing less than an all-out assault by gay and lesbian bigots on religious beliefs and the First Amendment.

That makes no sense.
You’re implying that non gay marriage supporters try to prevent people from believing, acting, thinking differently, or perceive things differently?
I’m not getting what you’re basing that on.
Can you flesh out your paranoia with some examples? :)
Mimzey on December 7, 2012 at 10:34 PM

I’m basing that on the idea that just because your interpretation of Christianity doesn’t approve of homosexuality that you can’t tell other Christians or other people of faith or lack thereof that they must adhere to YOUR opinion as well.

Again, I have no problem with a church choosing not to marry homosexuals of they honestly belief it against their faith. But for people who feel that way to go beyond that and try to make it to where, again, the church down the street can’t be allowed to do so and have the government recognize it if they believe that way, THAT’s trying to make it to where others aren’t allowed to accept or perceive the situation differently and be given legitimacy.

THAT’s making it to where it’s either all your way or non at all. And just as bad as the hard liners on the left who want to force YOU to have to accept their priciples with no exceptions.

In my eyes, the issue of gay marriage can be solved in one simple action. If an established church or authorized civil servant is ok with marrying homosexuals following all the same marriage laws designed for men and women, then the marriage is legitimate and fully valid in the eyes of the law. If an established church chooses not to marry homosexuals, they can’t be forced to. Simple as that. Your right to your faith is maintained and others rights to their own is as well.

So I guess I ask again, would something like that be acceptable or does it just have to be all your way too, like the leftists want?

But you might be careful that it’s YOU digging the rhetorical hole, not me. Because if homosexuality is a genetic deal, “defect” or not, then it’s not a “choice” as so many opponents tend to believe either. So you might threat that needle a little closer next time to keep all the proper arguments intact.

Thats a completely different discussion and has nothing to do with marriage.

Mimzey on December 7, 2012 at 10:45 PM

That is the argument, Mimz.

The advocates do not want to discuss it. They know if SSM expands beyond “love” and “equality”, the game’s up.

Hell, I remember a poll from some time ago showing the American people thought 15-20% of the population was gay.

People have a totally distorted perception of what they’re debating because gay advocates dominate the media behind-the-scenes as executives, agents and financiers.

If the majority knew we were debating 4% of the population, with no scientific answers as to why they were pre-disposed to that inclination, support would crater.

But we’re talking about a group that cannot biologically sustain its culture without advocacy. Convince more people that bisexual behavior is acceptable, expand the pool. LibFree has made that admission on HA a few times.

If an established church or authorized civil servant is ok with marrying homosexuals following all the same marriage laws designed for men and women, then the marriage is legitimate and fully valid in the eyes of the law.

Genuine on December 7, 2012 at 10:49 PM

So you’re ok with True Marriage Equality as long as an established church or authorized civil servant is ok with performing the marriage ceremony? Is this correct?

I’m basing that on the idea that just because your interpretation of Christianity doesn’t approve of homosexuality that you can’t tell other Christians or other people of faith or lack thereof that they must adhere to YOUR opinion as well.

Then you’re having a completely different argument than the one I’m making.
Marriage has a long standing definition.
It also has some legal/tax benefits.

Gay marriage proponents like to claim discrimination for not being able to claim those civil tax, etc benefits.
These problems can be solved via contract law and tax classification means.

Gays seem to only mention the benefits…which is supposed to be their main complaint..and then harp endlessly about the religious part of marriage ceremonies.
Why is that? It can make gay marriage proponents look like bait and switch artists.

But maybe I’m not interpreting your position correctly.
What is your problem with status quo marriage? Is it legal standing/tax law/benefits, or not?

I agree. It seems that the position is a blend of people who honestly conflate the issue..others who are bait and switchers, and others who simply want to destroy traditional social values, for whatever reason.

So basically your position counters your first reply to the question.
Your honest answer is ..No.
Why not? If the problems of benefits, pensions, property etc were solved..why is the basis to continue manufacturing reasons for it to not be enough yet…you want more.
Just a question. Who do you think should not be allowed the privilege to marry, and why?
Mimzey on December 7, 2012 at 10:44 PM

I don’t think they run counter to each other at all. I accept civil unions as valid. But I do not think that being willing to accept homosexual MARRIAGE, since it’s the word that seems to give hang-ups, as legitimate if performed by a willing and established church or civil servant the same way a heterosexual couple would be is “manufacturing reasons”. I think it’s being REASONABLE.

My honest answer is, yes, I accept civil unions, but also accept a church’s right to marry homosexuals if they see it as acceptable.

Who do I think should NOT be allowed to marry? Relatives and minors and adults I suppose. Relatives because there is a difference between not being able to bear children, and legitimizing relationships that garauntee birth defects. Minors and adults because minors no matter your sexuality are not sexual objects for adults and are not able to legally make that decision for themselves yet, among many other decisions of consequence until they come of age rightfully so.

But we’re talking about homosexuals and whether your church can be forced to perform and accept them or whether you can force the church down the street to accept the opposite in regards to GAY MARRIAGE.

Who do I think should NOT be allowed to marry? Relatives and minors and adults I suppose. Relatives because there is a difference between not being able to bear children, and legitimizing relationships that garauntee birth defects. Minors and adults because minors no matter your sexuality are not sexual objects for adults and are not able to legally make that decision for themselves yet, among many other decisions of consequence until they come of age rightfully so.

But we’re talking about homosexuals and whether your church can be forced to perform and accept them or whether you can force the church down the street to accept the opposite in regards to GAY MARRIAGE.

Genuine on December 7, 2012 at 11:07 PM

Why do you care so much about the word Marriage?

Why would you disallow adult relatives from getting married? Which relatives? Many states have legal marriage for cousins. The birth defects meme is just that. It takes about 7 unbroken generations of people marrying first cousins for the possibility of birth defects. Albert Einstein was the product of first cousin marriage, as are many other well known people.

That said..how about polygamy..whats wrong with that? Seeing that the whole fear of genetics is out of the equation with gay marriage..how about a father marring his son..or mother daughter?? What is the basis of discriminating against them? How about brothers…or sisters?? Is that O.K. and if not, why not?

But maybe I’m not interpreting your position correctly.
What is your problem with status quo marriage? Is it legal standing/tax law/benefits, or not?
Mimzey on December 7, 2012 at 10:58 PM

It is legal standings and whatnot, but it’s also more than that. It’s an acceptance that the idea of marriage means more to people than just child rearing and sometimes can have nothing at all to do with it. People of all sexualities appreciate the concept of a traditional marriage and equate the legitimacy of their relationship to it.

If my girlfriend and I went and signed all the papers to legally own half each others property it’s still not the same as being “married”. Marriage has a significance to people. An emotional one, a legal one, and religious one.

Yes, it’s about legal standing, but it’s not JUST about that. It’s about them also believing in the concept of marriage and “legitimate” family and wanting that unification in the same way that heterosexuals do.

I defend your right to disagree with the concept and not take part in it.

I just don’t defend gay marriage opponents ability or efforts to say that everyone else must adhere to what their faith tells them is right on the subject either. You don’t have to do it or take part. But you can’t tell others that they can’t.

That’s MY answer and my belief. I hope that clears some of it up for you whether you agree with me or not. It is my honest “genuine” answer. And I recognize that what I propose is NOT what the left proposes and not the argument you face. Conservatives who disagree face a foe who wants to force you to accept their ways as well. So you fight how you need to.

But reality and reasonability is much simpler and in it can be found a fair answer where everyone could be accounted for if we tried and it wasn’t just a back and forth, my way or the highway, both ways, game. Goodnight all!

Not running away, I’d love to carry on a debate with 8 posters at the same time and all. ;) But I’ve spent enough time on the computer and been honest and straightforward with you while trying to offend or make people feel belittled as is possible.

Not running away, I’d love to carry on a debate with 8 posters at the same time and all. ;) But I’ve spent enough time on the computer and been honest and straightforward with you while trying to offend or make people feel belittled as is possible.

Genuine on December 7, 2012 at 11:19 PM

I’m out too.
Thanks for the perspectives. You have been honest and respectful.

It’s not the word, it’s the idea, it’s mean something, to me, and most other people regardless of sexual orientation. The concept means something to people and is a good thing to them. In our culture you’re supposed to marry your partner. It’s not the word, it’s the concept, as well you already know. It means something more than just taxes, child rearing, and legal standing to people. Yes it means those things too, but it’s by no means just that.

If fact, I think in most cases it’s opponents who care so much about the word and so little about the actual full social concepts behind modern marriage, when you’ll accept civil unions but bend over backward to keep the word marriage from anyone who isn’t a heterosexual couple. When you say, isn’t just the legal recognition enough, why do you have to get the word as well? To me THAT is denigrating the sanctity and larger emotional, mental, and social characteristics of marital relationships in the minds of modern human brings.

HotAir.com posts NOTHING on Pearl Harbor Day to commemorate the horrific Japanese surprise attack on the American Naval Fleet in port at Pearl Harbor leaving 2,402 Americans killed and 1,282 Americans wounded — many of them civilians.

Pathetic.

This website has gone to crap ever since Michelle Malkin sold out to the highest bidder.

Who do I think should NOT be allowed to marry? Relatives and minors and adults I suppose.

Genuine on December 7, 2012 at 11:07 PM

Whoa, whoa, whoa! Wait, what?

What if an established church or authorized civil servant is ok with performing the marriage ceremony?

I call that being REASONABLE.

Relatives because there is a difference between not being able to bear children, and legitimizing relationships that garauntee birth defects.

There are many, many people that currently have the right to get married BUT have a much greater likelihood to cause birth defects. Do you want to REMOVE their right to get married? Of course not. You’re just using a widely repeated bigoted excuse. Why are you doing that?

Minors and adults because minors no matter your sexuality are not sexual objects for adults

This is an incredibly strange statement. Are you seriously claiming that no “adults” fall in love with people who are chronologically younger?

and are not able to legally make that decision

What are you talking about? YOU are talking about making changes to the LAW in order to allow marriage for people that currently don’t have that legal right. Why do you support only making changes to the law to support the groups of people that you favor, while refusing to allow changes to the law to support others?

But we’re talking about homosexuals…

And that’s my question. Why are you only talking about homosexuals?

whether your church can be forced to perform and accept them or whether you can force the church down the street to accept the opposite in regards to GAY MARRIAGE.

I don’t understand your hypocrisy. Why are you allowed to force other churches to accept the OPPOSITE in regards to MANY TYPES OF MARRIAGE?

So you’re cool with adopted brothers and sisters getting married? Or Step-dads and daughters? What about two brothers? You have to realize that it is the relationship that is immoral, no?
monalisa on December 7, 2012 at 11:43 PM

I do realize that, yes. But I also accept the reality honest adult homosexual relationships do not fall into that category for arguably the majority of American’s, and that with that shift in attitude comes an accepted validity to their relationships that is not bestowed in any kind of proportional magnitude close to those of the “long dark road” relationship scenarios that you lined out.

And I accept that you can find philosophical fault with my ideas on this specific subject, homosexual marriage, or at least decent RHETORICAL footing in an Internet argument. But that doesn’t change the fact that today, in this day and age, in America, homosexual relationships are not even close to the same category as incestual relationships. And to use the two as equivocation not only attempts to avoid the obvious legitimate questions that are being raised in our society about homosexuality, but it attempts to link them or say that they’re relationships are the same or equally bad, when in the minds of the majority of Americans, adult homosexuality is not in the same ballpark as incest.

I actually have supported Civil unions for about ten years but I suspected that the courts would continue to build on that and turn it into full blown state recognized Marriage.

Which is exactly what is about to happen.

And I’m pro-choice, but have strong concerns how a pro-life constitutional amendment could ever be administered/enforced. What would you have to have? A national registry for all pregnancies? Would people then be barred at some point from having children? Would they be sterilized if the ObamaCare docs found out that the patient was a regular abortion customer to save money? Very dicey it could be.

I wish the Federal government would just but out of our lives. Except for the military, national infrastructure and public safety.

And I’m pro-choice, but have strong concerns how a pro-life constitutional amendment could ever be administered/enforced. What would you have to have? A national registry for all pregnancies? Would people then be barred at some point from having children? Would they be sterilized if the ObamaCare docs found out that the patient was a regular abortion customer to save money? Very dicey it could be.

I wish the Federal government would just but out of our lives. Except for the military, national infrastructure and public safety.

PappyD61 on December 8, 2012 at 12:49 AM

Doctors could be fined or put in jail for participating in an abortion. Have their licenses taken away. Clinics denied permits.

Asking if there has to be a national registry for pregnancies is just silly. We have laws against murdering an adult. Do you have to submit to the authorities that that person is going to be visiting your house, so they might want to check to make sure they make it out alive?

I, too, wish the federal government would butt out of our lives, abortion law included. If California or New York wants abortion legal, and if Kansas does not, those states should be able to write laws saying that. Of course, personally, I would want California and New York to write laws against it, but in our Constitutional Republic, the very least is that Kansas should be able to.

Who do I think should NOT be allowed to marry? Relatives and minors and adults I suppose. Relatives because there is a difference between not being able to bear children, and legitimizing relationships that garauntee birth defects.

But YOU have stated repeatedly that marriage is NOT about procreation; it is about love. And people like you are so emotionally obtuse. It it is anyone’s constitutional right to marry who they love; then that includes relatives.

Constitutional protections are not just who you decide you like. You are doing exactly what you accuse the right of.. discriminating and putting your morals on a group of people. If you say that the state has no reason to regulate marriage because it is unfair to homosexuals then this extends to other groups.

And much has been made about the religious aspect of opposing gay marriage; little tidbit for you alot of us are not religious.

How many legs does a dog have if you call the tail a leg? Four. Calling a tail a leg doesn’t make it a leg. Abraham Lincoln

Tripwhipper on December 7, 2012 at 4:31 PM

Like garlic to a vampire. Like Kryptonite to Superman. The entire modus operandi of progressivism is the claim that words mean whatever the most powerful group at the time wants them to mean, and that truth is just the majority opinion of the winners.

To them, if the Federal Government decrees it’s a marriage, then no one can gainsay it. Or, in other words, “What therefore the Federal Government hath redefined, let no man claim ever meant anything else.”

And if you can’t see the danger in letting government redefine its own reality at will, then you deserve the tyranny that’s coming your way.

It is amazing though to see how many purported conservatives are completely happy with newspeak.

with that shift in attitude comes an accepted validity to their relationships that is not bestowed in any kind of proportional magnitude close to those of the “long dark road” relationship scenarios that you lined out.

Genuine on December 8, 2012 at 12:15 AM

The only reason those other relationships don’t have “accepted validity” is because bigots like you refuse to accept them.

How on earth do you not see that if you simply DID accept them, then they would be accepted?

Your lack of logic boggles the mind.

And I accept that you can find philosophical fault with my ideas on this specific subject

I assume that this means you’re accepting your hypocrisy. Why are you comfortable being a hypocrite?

But that doesn’t change the fact that today, in this day and age, in America, homosexual relationships are not even close to the same category as incestual relationships.

Please explain how you aren’t incredibly embarrassed using social stigmas as a determination for who gets certain rights bestowed upon them?

At least most people try to avoid sounding so blatantly bigoted.

Additionally, this proves that all the supposed reasons that you used above were just excuses for your bigotry. Thanks for admitting that it was all about social stigmas with you.

That’s the whole point. I’m saying that Group A is different than Group B and Group C, but deserve the same rights. That’s not equivocation, and it’s stupid to try claiming that it is.

legitimate questions that are being raised in our society about homosexuality

Why are you pretending that legitimate questions aren’t being raised in our society about other groups?

Why are you declaring the questions being raised about other groups to be illegitimate? Could you be any more condescending?

but it attempts to link them or say that they’re relationships are the same or equally bad

Again, saying that True Marriage Equality should give everyone equal rights isn’t saying that anything is equally bad. It’s saying that everyone should have equal rights even though these groups are different.

Again, Group A is not the same as Group B, but deserves the same rights. Do you get it yet?

when in the minds of the majority of Americans, adult homosexuality is not in the same ballpark as incest.

Why does this matter? Are you doubling down on your pure stupidity of a social stigma test for rights? Could you get any more bigoted than this?

So, your claiming that Group B doesn’t deserve the same rights as Group A BECAUSE society is bigoted about Group B???

True Marriage Equality isn’t an inconvenience to anyone either, yet I have an incredibly difficult time getting support for it on here from people that I wouldn’t think were so bigoted.

And, btw, I clearly remembering you refusing to support True Marriage Equality. Why is that?

blink on December 8, 2012 at 1:23 AM

Because they never get that they are just as guilty of forcing their morals on someone else as they accuse gay marriage opponents of. The whole argument is based on emotion and not logic and reason.

If the state has no interest in regulating marriage and no interest in child producing couples and everyone in love should have equality then it stands to reason that this includes incestuous couples and polyamourous groups. And when you put constitutional protections based on a something as complex as sexuality and love then that MEANS everyone gets this protection no matter what society thinks of behavior, sexuality etc.

The state offers numerous benefits, financial or otherwise, to married couples, yet denies homosexuals that same opportunity, it’s violating the 14th amendment.

JetBoy on December 7, 2012 at 5:50 PM

Circular reasoning. The state denies absolutely nothing to homosexuals. Homosexuals already have the right to get married.

What you are actually demanding is that marriage should be redefined to mean what it has never meant before so it will appeal to homosexuals. Because if it doesn’t appeal to homosexuals, then the government has violated equal protection under the law, even though it was not the government that defined marriage in the first place.

Once we dispose of the misleading phrase “gay marriage,” it’s easy to see that what we actually have are just homosexual activists demanding marriage be redefined to apply to same-sex partners because they are only interested in marriage if it is redefined that way.

You have an equal protection case to be made for being able to get married. You do not have an equal protection case to be made for changing the definition of marriage to suit yourself.

The government bears no responsibility to redefine marriage to please all supplicants.